K VENKATARATNAM Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The seizure of foodgrain stocks by the 1st respondent (District Revenue Officer) Guntur on 9-8-1974 from the business premises of the petitioner at Ponnur, Guntur District has led to the filing of the writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner is a holder of two licences under the Andhra Pradesh Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Licensing Order) and has been doing business in food grains at Ponnur, Guntur District. The seizure of the food grains of different varieties was made on the ground that the petitioner had violated Clause 7-A of the Licensing Order inasmuch as there was no stock book kept in the business premises or his house. The report of the Inspector of Police Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies, Guntur (2nd respondent), to the 1st respondent was that the petitioner admitted before him that such a stock book was not maintained. The petitioner denies having made any such admission. It is his case that he has been maintaining a regular stock register, which is being inspected by the Grain Purchasing Assistant, Bapatla and which he has been signing in token of his having inspected the stocks with reference to the stock register. It is further claimed that he not only maintains the stocks register, but also a day book and Ledger and as such, there was no violation of Clause 7-A of the Licensing Order. On the report of the Inspector of Police. Vigilance Cell, the District Revenue Officer issued a notice under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to show cause why the seized commodities should not be confiscated. The enquiry was posted to 17-9-1974. The petitioner attended the office of the 1st respondent on that day; but the enquiry was adjourned to 15-10-1974 and again to 19-11-1974. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent by his order dated 15-10-1974, directed the sale of the foodgrain stocks which were seized on 9-8-1974. It is this order directing the sale of the seized stocks that is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Chowdary, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the District Revenue Officer has no power to sell, under the Licensing order, the stocks seized by the Inspector of Police Vigilance Cell, before an order is made under Section 6-A of the Act, that, even assuming that there is such a power, it cannot be exercised without notice to the petitioner denying him an opportunity of being heard; that the Licensing Order does not provide for acquisition or requisition of food grain stocks; and that, therefore, the sale of the seized stocks directed to be sold by the 1st respondent is violative of Article 31 (2) of the Constitution.